User talk:JzG/Archive 147

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lyndsey Turner

Hey JzG

I am currently trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of British theater makers and noticed you have a page held off for Lyndsey Turner. There isn't much online about her as she seems to avoid doing press interviews and so on but she is certainly a formidable force in theatre and should be represented on the site. Could I perhaps persuade you to allow me to create a page for her?

Trandodit Trandodit (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trandodit (talk • contribs) 21:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Universal Medicine

Noticed some lunatic ranting on the Universal Medicine Talk Page. Probably not worth a response, but might be worth keeping an eye on. 79616gr (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

We've missed you... GABgab 22:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Conso International

I understand you deleted this article under G11. I do not understand. I wrote the article in a neutral tone and included adequate evidence of the organization's notability. Can you please explain? Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You wrote the article for pay, you are not in any position to judge whether it was neutral or not. Now go away and I look forward to your being banned. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I was NOT PAID to write a single WORD OF IT! I wrote it because the company was NOTABLE. And if you wanted it delete it because you [falsely] believed I was paid, then you should have deleted it as the work of an undisclosed paid editor and arranged to have my account blocked, which is not what you did. You deleted it as promotional, which it wasn't. I have declared my paid edits, and for this article I was NOT PAID. KDS4444 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Conso International

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Conso International. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KDS4444 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Go away, spammer. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

Your edit summary, when you courtesy blanked blanked this discussion, your referred to an OTRS ticket.

I left a note on the talk page of another administrator, who closed a related AFD, with a closure that said the subject's request for deletion was the clinching factor. I thought, if they were aware that the subject requesting deletion had had their identity confirmed via OTRS, the closure should have said the request's authenticity had been confirmed, via OTRS.

A few years ago an individual who had recently joined the OTRS team confirmed something I had been worried about. They told me that they had found that some of their fellow OOTRS team members had an alarming track ecord of naivette over how easy it was to create new email ID at sites like hotmail and gmail, and had accepted emails from Joe.Blow@gmail.com as sufficient to confirm their correspond had proven they were the real life Joe Blow. But that is another issue.

I know it was ten years ago. You don't happen to remember the ticket number? I know it was ten years ago. You don't happen to remember if the OTRS seemed to be thoroughly conducted?

There were certain hints in the latest AFD that the individual claiming to be Nusbacker was a wikipedia contributor. OUTING, I won't mention their wiki-ID, six letters, starts with N.

I looked at their (short) contribution history. I don't know what I expected from a Professor history. It fell short.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall it, but I have always had a low bar to courtesy blanking, it's often the only thing we can offer someone who is both angry and wrong. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ding-dong...mail delivery

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is lost email?.
Message added 00:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Resent Atsme📞📧 00:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That is re-sent, not resent. 😂 Atsme📞📧 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you, that was a nice thought. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Walter Horn

Hi there, just wanted to give you a heads-up that your edit at Walter Horn broke a citation. I'd fix it myself, but I couldn't tell at a glance exactly which parts you'd meant to remove. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Will fix. the issue was a citation to Stormfront, the neo-Nazi website. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Q Methodology

I've just seen that you did delete in 2016 2 sections in the Q methodology article, dealing with QM software and some link sites. I would easily admit that some of the links were not up-to-date but, as I am working on this subject for one year now, I know that most of the pages outside Wikipedia listing these softwares are etiher largely false or completely outdated, rendering the rask of finding useful tools rather hard for a rookie. May I know why you did remove this information? YvesRoy (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

None of it has reliable independent third party sourcing. It's trivia. Oh, and at least one of the sources that was used, is now blacklisted because it's only ever added by the site owner. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Welcome back. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I CAN HAZ CHEEZBURGER? Guy (Help!) 16:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding edit

Hi! Regarding this edit: it was added to remove a Refimprove: should that be re-added? Namnatulco (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably. That entire article reeks of WP:SYN anyway. It's a monograph by Tilmann.Bruckhaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 10:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove dates from book citations when an OCLC # is present

Please do not remove dates from book citations when an OCLC # is present. Please check the OCLC link first. This is just plain due dilligence.

OCLC and Wikipedia have a mission alignment and a mutual benefit. Let's make use of that!

Peaceray (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove dates. I removed the entire cite because the publication date and the copyright date displayed in the linked document don't match, plus if the cited OCLC date is correct (actually it may not be, per the flyleaf) then the link is a copyvio. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Huh? This edit shows the citation remaining, minus the URL & the date. 1998 is the year shown in the text of the PDF in the URL & 1998 is the year shown in the OCLC record. The fact that the PDF properties show a February 2003 date is immaterial. A scan of a book is almost always considerably after the book is published. The publication year of the book here is accurate. If you are using an automated tool, then you need to adjust it so that it does not remove the date for book citations. Peaceray (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I remember now. So: I checked the link, the image has a date of 1921, so the 1998 date is in conflict with that. Faced with conflicting data, I removed the date. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to beleaguer this, but are we talking about the same link? http://bigfiles90.angelfire.com/HawnSovDoFactsMatterTTS.pdf I don't see a 1921 date associated with the document (1998 in the PDF, 2003 in the document properties). I am mindful that as someone who is an admin with a an edit count several magnitudes more than my, you are pretty busy (& thanks for all your work!), but I am just trying to understand what happened here. Peaceray (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
"Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Twigg-Smith, Thurston, 1921- Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?"
I am an idiot: that's his birth year! So it's just an apparent copyvio. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

So nice to see you back. I missed you! Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I will not be very active for some time. I am under ridiculous pressure at work. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I hope that is the good kind of pressure. Thanks for saying hi in any case. See you when you can be around :) Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It is very not the good kind. I suffered a relapse of PTSD symptoms earlier this year as a result of it. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Shit i am sorry. I had a time where i was waking up at night in sweats over work-things i wasn't able to get to during the day, where a fuckup meant irretrievable damage, so i sympathize. Hopefully dealing with the usual malarky here is much less stress-inducing and perhaps even relaxing. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I have to second that sentiment. Sometimes the craziness here is almost a laughable reprieve some days when in the real world you've got experiments failing on you, but all of a sudden a switch flips and adds to the burden instead. I've developed a rule of thumb that if I'm not sleeping due to work worries, my Wikipedia bookmark stays untouched. Hope things stay frosty for you now Guy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome home, Guy. A Traintalk 20:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see you back. GABgab 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Piling on the welcome back train. Glad to see you. David in DC (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, welcome back, and thanks for the renewed efforts to clear out predatory journals and walled gardens from the encyclopedia! They're appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Jigsaw Records (UK company)

Hi JzG. I saw that you deleted Jigsaw Records (UK company). There were some comments on the article's talk page which might be useful for future reference. They were originally posted to Talk:Jigsaw Records which were moved to the UK article's talk page when the US and UK were split off into seperate articles. Perhaps there's a way to retrieve these comments, either by {{G8-exempt}}ing the UK one's talk page or by moving the comments back to the still existing article's talk page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just want to update that the talk page stuff has been sorted out by Cyp and JJMC89. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Avens and PMID 27453897

Hi JzG. I realize that this[1] literature review is published in a journal associated with Avens Publishing Group, a known predatory open access publisher; believe me when I say I know how shitty some of these journals and their publications can be (e.g., see WT:Copyrights/Archive 15#Extensive plagiarism of Wikipedia by an "academic journal" article - not sure how to deal with this). In this particular instance, this review article does seem to be fairly well written and adequately sourced IMO, although I realize that my own thoughts on a paper's quality are irrelevant per WP:MEDRS. Anyway, the only thing that this paper actually cites in the articles that you removed it from (i.e., addiction and FOSB) is a statement about what histone deacetylase inhibitors have been used in animal studies. If you really feel that it should come out, I suppose there's no real harm in removing it but I'd prefer to find a replacement citation for the statements beforehand. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

“What histone deacetylase inhibitors have been used in animal studies“ is such a low weight claim that a primary source should be enough to support it. That‘s without going into due weight issues, though. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ McCowan TJ, Dhasarathy A, Carvelli L (February 2015). "The Epigenetic Mechanisms of Amphetamine". J. Addict. Prev. 2015 (Suppl 1). PMC 4955852. PMID 27453897. Epigenetic modifications caused by addictive drugs play an important role in neuronal plasticity and in drug-induced behavioral responses. Although few studies have investigated the effects of AMPH on gene regulation (Table 1), current data suggest that AMPH acts at multiple levels to alter histone/DNA interaction and to recruit transcription factors which ultimately cause repression of some genes and activation of other genes. Importantly, some studies have also correlated the epigenetic regulation induced by AMPH with the behavioral outcomes caused by this drug, suggesting therefore that epigenetics remodeling underlies the behavioral changes induced by AMPH. If this proves to be true, the use of specific drugs that inhibit histone acetylation, methylation or DNA methylation might be an important therapeutic alternative to prevent and/or reverse AMPH addiction and mitigate the side effects generate by AMPH when used to treat ADHD.

Request for Reconsideration

I did look at this, but the requester is a WP:SPA and I did not find xyr arguments persuasive. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JzG,

You recently nominated a page to be discussed for deletion. Specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Taillard#Michael_Taillard

I would kindly ask that you reconsider your position on this matter. The reason you gave for this nomination was and "abject fail of WP:PROF". Please consider the following not with WP:PROF in mind, but with WP:AUTHOR. It refers specific Wikipedia policy, and both quantitative and qualitative assessments to establish notability, but argues that the article was poorly formatted. Rather than delete the page entirely, the proper course of action would be to encourage experienced editors to edit the page so that the scope and emphasis are properly placed, and a more appropriate organization utilized:

"Academic publishing is moving to a different platform in which publishers use subscription-based download services, such as SpringerLink. If you look at Taillard's books based on downloads, you'll see even his earliest books are still getting consistent attention. This is a service you can use to confirm that. [1]

You can also use Academia.com to note that his name has been specifically referenced in 551 papers: [2]
It is also worth noting that the importance of the work he's done is attracting the attention of various podcasts, from people who find his work extremely important: [3]
It is without doubt that he is a professor, as he works at Central Michigan University, and has contributed more greatly to academia than most professors through his writings. [4]

Taillard has written works that are considered revolutionary to military strategy. This is evidenced by the books Economics and Modern Warfare (plus the coming 2nd edition), Psychology and Modern Warfare, and Analytics and Modern Warfare. There are also citations present in the BLP that provide irrefutable evidence of being invited to speak on this matter at universities (specifically, Madonna University), and on podcasts. Within an interview in the award winning movie Dead Man Working, as well as the books themselves, it is confirmed that he was a consultant on these same topics with US Strategic Command as the invitation of Vice Admiral Cecil Haney in 2011, and in Washington DC at the Chief of Staff of the Army's Strategic Studies Group at the invitation of Colonel Edmund Degen. The National Writer's Series is publishing an author's profile based on these books on Dec. 01, 2017. This all demonstrates a range of very significant influence in the field of strategic studies that range across the academic, military, and literary industries for which there has been ongoing recognition for the last 7 years. As per Academia.edu, his works have been cited 551 times in scholarly papers, and they are read significantly more frequently than books of similar topics according to BookMetrix. That is solid proof of WP:AUTHOR for the developments of new concepts and theories in the field of strategic studies. If anything, the biggest violation in the Wikipedia page is that it fails to give proper emphasis to his contributions to this field of work. Reorganizing the article a bit to focus on his contributions and work in strategic studies would help give the article a more appropriate scope. He was working with top US military officers across the nation to develop new methods of strategy, and then wrote three books about it which are popular enough that the publisher is starting with 2nd editions, and has spoken to universities, podcasts, and authors' groups. If that doesn't make someone notable within the field of strategic studies, nothing does - this guy is at the top of the field within a somewhat niche but very important area of expertise. That most definitely fits the criteria for a notable author as per Wikipedia guidelines. A lot of the confusion seems to be stemming from the way the article was written. There's far too much emphasis on points for which the person is not notable and not enough emphasis given to why the person is notable. Let me explain. Notability is established under WP:AUTHOR as described in previous comments. The works fall directly under the direct criteria, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." The work has been of consistent interest to military, university, and public audiences for 7 years, and continues to be of interest. Strategic studies is a niche topic, but Taillard is clearly notable within it, as previously demonstrated. In addition, as someone pointed-out, nobody actually cites a Dummies book because they offer intro material that is generally not acceptable for academic citations, but everyone has heard of Corporate Finance for Dummies because it's in universities around the world. That being said, I would agree that the article fails to emphasize the reason for author notability. Instead of deleting it entirely, it seems prudent to rewrite it to narrow the scope of its content. The entire section on political views could be deleted, and the subsection on military reformation given its own section and expanded to include more details on that matter. Discussions on being a professor should be more of a side-note than a feature, and more details offered on his role in the development of his professional field. Early life could be deleted, although educational history might be prudent to the article. Would you agree that this makes sense? BullMooseRevival (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)"

"I agree with the comments of BullMooseRevival. I agree that the article needs a rewrite. I would post a 'reads like a CV' template on it. But I think the distinction between citations and downloads (one being good and useful, the other being worthless) is wrongheaded. The question is whether people are using his material, which, clearly, they are. I agree that he qualifies for Academic Person as a leader in his field. The extensive commentary showing that the Subject, in the commentator's view, doess not meet the Criterion C1, may be true, but may also be the fault of the editors of the article, who don't know about the guidelines for notability of academics, and therefore do not frame their content appropriately. But there are eight other Criteria, and also the statement " Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." Commentators may well be raising the bar far too high. Again, I think the article needs a template or two to encourage better style and better documentation, with attention to WP:NPROF. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)"

"Notability is established under WP:AUTHOR. The works fall directly under 2 criteria: 1: "The person is regarded as an important figure" and 2: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." As previously noted, people are buying, reading, and requesting more of the same content because of this. This, in fact, establishes notability under WP:NPROF under criteria 7, "7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Ample citations have been provided of this. The failure in the article is that it was poorly designed and written, something which a group of experienced editors should be able to resolve quite easily. In fact, there was even mention of templates? That is the point, right? To improve articles instead of spending endless days judging whether they should be deleted based upon their original form? BullMooseRevival (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)"

You note on your page that you try to stay open-minded about being erroneous. I think in this case your nomination was warranted with the article written in its original incarnation, but I encourage you to consider that the problem is with the manner the page was developed, rather than the content, itself. Considering matters from that perspective, would you agree that revision is a more appropriate course of action than total deletion? BullMooseRevival (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ http://www.bookmetrix.com/detail/book/f5573727-463c-4736-b1a5-e4effb69959f
  2. ^ https://www.academia.edu/upgrade?feature=search&search_id=13539035&trigger=advanced-search-result-count-notification
  3. ^ https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-madness-continues/id1299980175?mt=2&i=1000395067995
  4. ^ https://sbt.globalapp.cmich.edu/public/PublicSyllabusViewer.aspx?EPN=22321595
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_147"